DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER:I do not attempt to be polite or partisan in my articles, merely truthful. If you are a partisan and believe that the letter after the name of a politician is more important then their policies, I suggest that you stop reading and leave this site immediately--there is nothing here for you.

Modern American politics are corrupt, hyper-partisan, and gridlocked, yet the mainstream media has failed to cover this as anything but politics as usual. This blog allows me to post my views, analysis and criticisms which are too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets.

I am your host, Josh Sager--a progressive activist, political writer and occupier--and I welcome you to SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

This post is divided into two competing opinions on the topic of whether or not the Occupy movement should formulate demands: I posit that demands are needed to create unity among the occupiers and to promote support from the population at large. Doug Greene, another author for The Occupier, posits that demands are not the proper method of creating change, as the problems in society are systemic rather than limited to things that can change through incremental change. While both sides argue valid points, I will leave it up to the reader to determine which viewpoint is the more effective manner of changing the status quo; if, after reading both sides of the debate, you wish to make your opinions heard, please reply in the comments section with your conclusions.

Do the Occupiers need demands?

Occupy Demands: Why Demands are Necessary

By Josh Sager

One of the biggest strategic and ideological debates among the Occupy protesters is over the idea of demands – more specifically, whether to formulate a set of demands or to simply rally around the idea of “Occupy”. While both sides of this debate have valid arguments, I propose that a clear, coherent and fair set of demands would highly benefit the movement as a whole.

Occupier demands could be focused on both local and national issues, as long there are sufficient numbers of people behind the demands. Ideally there would be a multi-tiered set of demands – local, state, regional, and federal – which could be used to influence politics on every level. Local demands could focus on smaller issues, unique to an area (Occupy Harvard) and focus upon local politics to achieve change. State demands would be formed through agreement by local Occupations and would focus upon shifting policy on the state level, like the Wisconsin labor protests, as well as influencing senatorial/congressional elections. Regional demands would be formed by multiple state occupations such as the Northeast, Rust Belt or West Coast. The largest platform, the federal level, would focus on broad ideals of Occupy and national issues (campaign finance, civil rights, etc.). Each level could act independently of others. Occupy Boston and Occupy LA would have different local issues, but would have a say in the decisions made by higher levels.

The benefits of having demands would be seen in three areas: political impact, creating coalitions and recruitment.

Politics is all about messaging, and a set of demands or goals is necessary to promote a cause. Clear and easily digestible goals - such as ending a war, passing single-payer healthcare, or campaign finance reform - can be used to push politicians towards supporting policies promoted by the Occupiers. If a politician sees the Occupy movement as a well informed and motivated voting bloc, rather than a protest with no unifying goal, they will be far more likely to fear electoral retribution unless they support Occupy demands. Without demands there can be little accountability for politicians who go against the spirit of the Occupations.

A defined set of goals can also be used to create coalitions of support while clarifying the central ideals of the Occupy movement. Clarity of message gives a movement a defined purpose for member's actions while contributing towards group unity. In addition to internal unity, an organization can more easily create coalitions with other, similar, groups that would otherwise be difficult to form. While it is still up for debate whether the Occupy movement wants to start forming coalitions, this is a necessary step before it even becomes an option. One possible example of such a coalition would be Occupy and worker's rights organizations. If the Occupy movement were to definitively get behind worker’s rights as a core policy platform, unions and worker protection organizations would be more likely to support Occupy.

A clear set of demands could act as a recruiting tool to garner more support for the Occupy movement. By creating a set of policy demands that the occupiers can point to and say: ”Here is a problem that has harmed you, and this is what we can do to fix it”, whenever somebody asks the goals of the occupations, they can entice others to support and join them. If the Occupiers propose solutions that will benefit the common citizen and begin to rebalance the economic equality scale back towards the people, large numbers of people will respond positively. Large segments of the population have been harmed by the excesses of Wall Street and the corruption of Washington, creating great potential for mass-mobilization by the Occupy movement. Unless we have a clear set of goals, it is unlikely that we will mobilize any but the most motivated and informed citizens.

Without clear demands, increasing recruitment will be difficult as there will always be doubt as to the movement’s endgame. The unifying effects of demands can be seen as analogous to creating a magnetic compass. An iron needle can be magnetized through passing a magnetic field over it. Before it is magnetized, the iron molecules in the needle have magnetic polarities running in every direction, thus the magnetic polarities cancel each other out. When a magnetic field passes over the needle, the polarities align in a single direction and a magnetic compass is created. And just as a magnetic compass doesn’t work when it lacks alignment, a protest won’t work unless the protesters have common goals and demands.

The Case Against Demands

Beyond Demands
'We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy.”
-Graffiti from May 1968

by Doug Enaa Greene
and Jay Jubilee

“What are
your demands?” This a question frequently posed to the Occupy movement.
According to some, in order to be “effective” at achieving gains, movements
like Occupy need to put forth a list of concrete demands addressed to the
state. Occupy has not played by these rules. While supporting particular
campaigns that may include specific demands, Occupy remains outside of existing
structures as it strives to develop a new mode of politics that breaks
radically with the system.

Why
shouldn't Occupy focus on coming up with a list of immediate demands? We could
easily come up with a list, one that would include items such as
ending US wars and increasing social spending for things that people need—like
public transportation. There is nothing objectionable about these demands;
actually, they reflect many of the reasons people have become involved in
Occupy. The society we seek to create would indeed be one where public
transportation would be a universal right and there’d be no more wars for
empire.

What is problematic about such a
list of demands is that creates a false picture. It presents as separate,
issues that are really deeply connected, and suggests that progress will come
slowly with incremental gains adding up over time until we achieve a just
society. Furthermore, such lists often act as substitutes for an explanation of
the driving forces behind these injustices: namely the capitalist system, whose
very nature is to perpetuate social inequalities through its pursuit of profit
at all costs. Such lists keep us from seeing the whole picture and the need for
a radical break with capitalism.

Some in
Occupy say that we should focus on specific issues and find practical
solutions. Yet, can we separate the call for increased social spending from
ending the wars, from the need for overthrowing the rule of the 1% that sets
the frame for US foreign policy, without confusing matters and misleading
people? If we understand capitalism, a system where the means of economic
production and the social surplus are privately controlled by a few as the
problem, then we must find some way to challenge that system rather than only
demanding local changes to it.

Furthermore,
there is a problem with expressing our politics in the form of demands, which
are generally addressed to the rulers of the existing system. If we understand
capitalism and its government as being our enemy-- then how can we appeal to it
to fix our problems? That state seeks to ensure the continued functioning of
capitalism—to keep the profits flowing, and to subordinate the people to that
end--through its executive, legislature, courts, police, and army. Such an
appeal will ultimately fall on deaf ears.
Worse, by continuing to address this state as if it will violate its
nature, we lull people into wishful thinking.
We risk trapping our activity as well: continually making demands on the
state that we know it can’t grant, only to have the state prove (again and
again!) its “real nature” to us. We risk exhausting our energies talking to the
rulers, rather than to people beyond its reach.

Some will
argue that we should come up with “realistic” demands that can be accommodated
by the system—that people gain courage slowly, through winning victories.
Others argue for making “transitional” demands on the state so that we can show
others that this state—contrary to its democratic ideology—cannot or will not satisfy
those demands. The former position assumes that the system is still capable of
granting significant reforms—against evidence to the contrary. The latter point
assumes that people need to go through this charade of making demands on the
state to eventually see its “true nature.” This view assumes that the system is
not already exposed in the eyes of millions, to the point that many people will
not bother much with (what they themselves see as foolhardy) struggles around
immediate demands, since they see how problem runs deeper. To the contrary: our
ongoing assumption is that millions of people in this country already sense
that fundamental change is needed, that the system is the problem.

When Occupy refuses to come up
with demands, it refuses to play by established politics, and announces to all
that they shouldn't play by those rules either, since the game is rigged. When
we refuse to demand, we say that we don't want to play their game; we want to put
an end to it. We don’t demand that the
system change. We declare how sick the
system is—and we call for the 99% to join us in the creation of something radically
different and better.

While the Occupy Movement
doesn't have a list of demands, campaigns have emerged around Occupy that do
have clear demands. The Occupy the T campaign demands “No cuts. No hikes. No
layoffs” and “A sustainable, affordable, and comprehensive statewide
transportation plan that works for the 99%.”
These campaigns show the contradictory nature of demand-based politics.
On the one hand, the struggle around concrete concerns, anchored in defensive
demands has allowed occupiers to engage with a broader public, and to establish
themselves as defenders of the 99%.
However, the orientation of these demands towards the state tends to
pull back Occupy’s radical visions in order to allow us to “be taken seriously”
by the government.

We would argue that the proper
use of such demands is not in lobbying the state to accept them, but in
initiating broader and deeper conversations and relationships between occupiers
and other members of the 99%. We must not confuse such “demands” with our
actual goals of movement-building. Where they are a starting point for
developing deeper conversations, such “demands” play a useful role. But where they suppress such deeper
conversations, and where they get us to turn from our fellow T-riders and
workers and to look instead to the state for solutions, they are a danger. Whatever becomes of such campaigns, it
remains crucial that Occupy does not set its goal as getting only piecemeal
reforms from the system, but struggles for a more radical break.

To its credit, the Occupy the T
campaign declares what is unacceptable, seeks to unite the 99%, and promises to
build resistance to any T plan that does not meet our standards. In this sense,
the campaign is a way to engage the people and to popularize Occupy through
direct action. To the extent This campaign brings T-riders and workers into the
struggle by identifying where capitalism hurts them directly, Occupy the T
provides a site to fight for reforms in a revolutionary way. This struggle can
bring up larger questions of the system's irrationality and draw others into
the movement since the T's budget plan affects millions. Ultimately, the MBTA's plan is the latest
attempt to make working people pay more for less, so that capitalist profits can
go up and up.

Occupy has
declared its goal to be the creation of a society that prioritizes the needs of
all before the profits of a few. This declaration is not directed to the state,
but to people who are being abused or abandoned by the system. Whatever
immediate struggles we engage in, we must make it our goal to expose the system
and to empower people to challenge its legitimacy by their concerted action where
its problems are produced, where it is most vulnerable, and where we have
potential power: in workplaces where our
labor makes things run, on our trains and buses, where concerted collective
action could force the State Legislature to its knees. The goal is not so much
to get the state to change the situation, but to prepare the ground for the 99%
to seize control of these situations.

SHARE THIS STORY

Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous? Yes, but according to CNN: "Police say they have not charged Zimmerman because they have no evidence to contradict his story that he shot in self-defense." Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie? Isn't his credibility an issue? Aren't there surrounding circumstances that place the claim of self-defense in dispute? What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.

It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator.

Those demanding that charges be filed certainly seem to be on firm ground. Mr. Zimmerman pursued the victim contrary to instructions not to do so. He was much bigger than Trayvon. He had a gun. Trayvon had Skittles. He was "suspicious" of Trayvon apparently without justification or good cause, and there is evidence that he had some predisposition to reach such a conclusion. There is evidence that someone heard Trayvon whimpering before the shooting and that he was running away. His girlfriend heard him ask Zimmerman why he was following him. There is some question about the use of a racial slur. The ultimate question is whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life and killed Trayvon solely because of that fear. He ultimately may be found innocent, but no sidewalk judgment by a police officer should suffice. Justice requires so much more. Both Mr. Zimmerman and the statute which shields him should be put on trial.

Friday, March 23, 2012

The situation detailed in the following AP article is currently being investigated, thus it is difficult to identify the full scope of this infiltration; regardless of the results of the investigation, what we see now is obviously unacceptable. The use of a secret police (NYPD assisted by the CIA) force to attack peaceful political organizations and religious groups is the antithesis of American values and a dangerous step towards a police state. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, this is an unacceptable attack on the rights of Americans and should be met with an independentinquiry.

Anonymous's Last Incarnation

All Credit to DregStudios

Copyright Disclaimer

While I don't quote sources directly, I receive a large amount of information from the sources listed below. All links that I post to my blog are credited to the publisher listed on the video or article.